About Me

Name: Mike
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

What about Those Born on US Soil?

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:51:24 PM
Good question.
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Think about it a minute. Everyone knows that most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers were here in America legally. Let's just suppose hypothetically that one of these hijackers, say Mohammad Atta, was instrumental in conceiving a child later born in Florida. Would the mere fact that the child was born on US soil give that illegitimate child an entitlement of eligibility to one day occupy the highest office in the land, that of President of the United States? Same situation as Obama. Father being a Muslim foreigner, enters the US legally, gets his girlfriend pregnant. (Remember, Barry's father was still married to the woman in Kenya at the time).

The short answer is no. Merely being born on US soil does not confer an entitlement to someday being eligible to be President. That was the reason why the Framers put in the words "natural born" before "citizen" in reference to qualifications for the office of President, whereas they just specify that Senators and Congressional Representatives be ordinary citizens. Likewise, a mere congressional resolution that someone who was not born on US soil but whose parents are US citizens is henceforth a natural born citizen does not confer on that person any entitlement to eligibility to be President.

Confusion may arise because at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789, there was no Fourteenth Amendment, so all future citizens born after 1789 were either natural born citizens following the English common law criteria, or became citizens through the process of naturalization. The Fourteenth Amendment to protect the Negroid extended citizenship to all those born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, whether or not their parents were citizens. This leaves open the question of whether a child, one or both of whose parents are here illegally, who happens to be born in the United States, is or is not a citizen, which depends on whether the child falls within the jurisdiction of the United States or that of a foreign power. If we use the same criteria that all citizens are either those that are natural born citizens or those that are naturalized, we run into problems because the Framers clearly never intended that all persons born on American soil would be natural born citizens and so eligible to hold the office of President.

The court is asked to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment is an assertion that all those who are now citizens by virtue of being born on US soil, but who would not have been natural born citizens in 1789 by virtue of either one or both parents not being US citizens at the time of their birth, but rather subjects of a foreign power, automatically acquire eligibility to hold the office of President, which would not have been the case had they been born in 1789 as they would not have been natural born citizens at that time as required in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  This may be a case of first impression.

This case will probably reach the US Supreme Court. Obama is too arrogant to do the right thing and resign like Nixon did in 1974.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Birth a Red Herring

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:39:24 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The question of where Obama was born is a distraction to shift the focus away from the real reason why he is unqualified to serve as President of the United States. Kenyan officials and relatives of Obama have a vested interest in saying that he was born there to promote their own country. The real question is not one of birth, but of parentage.

Barry Obama's status follows that of his father. When born in Hawaii in 1961, Obama was a subject of the British Crown like his father. He only obtained US citizenship by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence he is not a natural born citizen.

The question is one of remedy. The federal court in exercising jurisdiction is called upon to decide whether Barack Obama can actually prove that he is qualified to be President. Citizens have a right to demand that our government leaders, and the Commander in Chief in particular, are qualified to hold public office. Because of the separation of powers, it is doubtful whether a federal magistrate can remove someone from the office of President. Congress alone has that power through impeachment proceedings. However, the Constitution only allows impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

It is worth noting again that Barack Obama took the presidential oath twice, because in the first ceremony there was a defect. This basis of impeachment will have to be fraud on the electorate, which will require proof of intent. This will be difficult to prove in Obama's case, mostly because of prior cases of unqualified candidates running for office.  The court could at some point, however, issue an order barring Obama from seeking reelection in 2012.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To Be or not to Be?

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:54:47 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The CliffsNotes rendition of Shakespeare's Hamlet apparently has Hamlet's indecisiveness as the central theme, or at least that would appear to be the case based upon recent comparisons to Obama's indecision on Afghanistan and acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. This fits nicely with the "values free" trend in public education.

While my expertise is not Shakespearean literature, having only once seen the play Hamlet performed many years ago by a Los Angeles theatre arts company in conjunction with a my high school alma mater noted for turning out highly acclaimed actors and actresses, my impression was quite different.

Shakespeare's motivation was always religious in nature, primarily stemming from the persecution of Catholics in England. Hamlet was a morality play about murder, based loosely on the Danish war hero Amleth, whose legends transcribed by Saxo Grammaticus in 1185 probably derive from a real person who lived in Denmark much earlier. To my way of thinking, the movie trailer for Last Action Hero featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger as Hamlet conveys Shakespeare's meaning much better.

Although ending tragically, the moral is clear. Murderers will not go unpunished.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can the Illegitimate Son of an Alien Be President?

Posted by Mike on Monday, October 12, 2009 7:41:00 PM
The answer is no.
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
There were certain classes of people excluded by our Founding Fathers from being eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. The first excluded class is citizens of foreign countries or subjects of foreign powers. The second is people who were not US citizens by virtue of being too young or not having been emancipated. The third is people who lived within the states but were not citizens because they belonged to a Native tribe or nation. Barry Hussein Obama born in 1961 in Hawaii is a US citizen because the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to all persons born within the United States of America, and within the jurisdiction thereof. Barry Obama's father Barack Obama was a subject of the British Crown at the time of Barry's birth. He was a resident alien living in Hawaii on a student visa. Barack Obama purportedly married a US citizen in Hawaii. At the time he was married to a Kenyan woman and the Hawaiian marriage is therefore legally invalid. This means that Barry Hussein Obama was illegitimate, something we all knew anyway. This has no bearing on his qualifications to be President of the United States, or lack thereof. Would a child of an alien father here in America illegally, who happens to be born here, be eligible to hold the office of President someday? Most Americans would agree that such an offspring of an alien here illegally would lack the status to qualify for holding the highest office in the land. They would be right. Under our Constitution, such offspring would not be a natural born citizen.

 Does it in any way matter that Barry's father was here legally on a student visa?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Article II, Section 1 not Superceded by Fourteenth Amendment

Posted by Mike on Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:34:15 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
In the previous post, Barry Obama's fraud in running as a Democrat candidate for President was discussed. It might be added that there is evidence of Obama's foreign birth in Kenya introduced in the case of Barnett et al. vs. Obama. Depending on the outcome of this case, Obama may not only be ineligible to serve as President, but may be subject to deportation back to Kenya if it is found that he was actually born there. There is also some question as to whether Obama had prior knowledge of his foreign birth, if indeed that was the case, before running for President.

The Fourteenth Amendment's definition of U.S. citizenship to cover all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, cannot reasonably be construed to broaden the citizenship requirements for federal public office enunciated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Moreover, any subsequent Congressional statute can have no bearing on the classification as a "natural born citizen" of Article II, Section 1, insofar as the legislative branch has no authority pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to redefine this terminology or to expand the class of persons eligible to serve as President or Vice-President.

In American history, Chester Arthur was never qualified to serve as Vice-President under Garfield, nor as President after Garfield's death in 1881. Timely objections were raised based upon his father being born in Ireland and not having been naturalized at the time of Chester's birth in 1829.

Barry Goldwater was not eligible to serve as President when he ran in 1964, because at the time of his birth in 1909, the Arizona Territory was not a state within the Union.

John McCain was not eligible when he ran for President in 2008 because he is a Panamanian citizen born in Panama in 1936. Furthermore, he is not qualified to serve in the United States Senate.

None of this has anything to do with fairness. It is about limited, constitutional government. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he contends, this only makes him an ordinary citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. He is still ineligible to serve as President by virtue of his not being a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution at the time of its ratification in 1787.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barry's Last Stand

Posted by Mike on Saturday, October 10, 2009 4:54:49 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The usurper Barack Obama's time in office is running out.

The federal action Barnett et al. vs. Obama raises the key question of Obama's eligibility. Like it or not, in the final analysis, the question comes down to whether a person with the same parentage status would have had the necessary qualifications to run for federal public office at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1787. By redefining citizenship requirements, Congress cannot expand the qualifications to hold office as laid down in the Constitution.

In my judgment, the question of the question of the location of Barry Obama's place of birth is a red herring. This is the real reason why the Obama camp will not divulge the actual birth certificate. In leaving this question open, the focus is taken away from the real reason why Obama is not qualified.

If in 1787, a person's father was a foreign born subject of the British Crown, that person would not have been qualified as not being a natural born citizen. Barry's father had never renounced his allegiance to the British Crown based upon his citizenship in Kenya at the time of Barry's birth in 1961. Therefore, whether Barry was born in Kenya or Hawaii, his status is still that of one who is not a natural born citizen. He was never qualified to become President for this reason.

The 2008 presidential election was invalid. Obama and Biden will be removed from office once this becomes clear. All of Obama's appointments, including that of Justice Souter's replacement and the numerous czars, are likewise invalid. There will have to be a new election, and a new Supreme Court appointment once the new president is sworn into office. In the meantime, Nancy Pelosi will be the interim president as next in the line of succession.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Fraud Trial Could Set Stage for Nuremberg Style Inquiry

Posted by Mike on Saturday, October 10, 2009 12:25:57 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
The reason for the widespread liberal opposition to forcing Obama to prove his qualifications to be President is that the federal trial scheduled for January 26, 2010 before Justice Carter will set a new precedent for accountability at the highest levels of government. The last thing that the liberal elite wants is accountability in government.

The Nuremberg trials after WWII stood for the principle that government officials cannot hide behind the excuse that they were following the law in committing crimes including murder. We need more brave Justices to begin prosecutions against wrongdoers of the Administrations under Obama, Clinton, and Carter, to prosecute them for treason and for killing unborn Americans.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Creative Minority Needed

Posted by Mike on Friday, October 09, 2009 2:48:27 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Benedict XVI, reflecting on dwindling church attendance among Christians in the post-Communist Czech Republic, told journalists en route to Prague "that normally those who determine the future are the creative minority."

In America, Jews have always filled this role of helping to set the agenda. Recent trends show that while most Americans still believe in a Supreme Being and profess to being Christian, fewer and fewer young people identify with any particular religion. This means that for the future, Christian believers who are regular church goers will have to become another creative minority lending new ideas and a unique moral perspective to the increasingly secularized society at large.

Europe is also heading in the same direction, with fewer and fewer Christians who practice their faith regularly. Also, the European Union continues to be reticent about expressing constitutionally the formative influence of Christianity in shaping European culture over the centuries. Both America and Europe are becoming dominated by secular, cultural elites, out of touch with the vast majority of citizens.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Care Reform on the Way

Posted by Mike on Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:22:16 AM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
As congressional leaders get more input from the concerns of real Americans, the liberal health care plan is sinking. There still is a real need for better health care. The likely result will be a boon for private insurance companies who will receive increases in premium revenues as Americans without health care coverage will be required to obtain some type of coverage to decrease per capita costs. The public option will not suffice, because of widespread opposition due to the failure of the Medicare system.

There will also have to be specific restrictions on abortion, sterilization and contraceptive funding which should never be considered as health care. In fact, state laws will be needed to prohibit insurance companies from paying for these services and prescription items.

Because of the push to mandate coverage of pre-existing conditions, which only makes sense when all are covered, medical premiums should be expected to rise. Employers will be expected to bear the brunt of these cost increases and we can expect that health insurance will become mandatory for all full time employees, again to help pay for the cost of covering more people.

There may be some cost reductions because of preventive care and elimination of emergency treatment for the uninsured.

Without the public option, we can expect less fraud and waste. This also leaves open the possibility for transitioning on a grand scale to privately operated medical cooperatives in which everyone has a voice in deciding what care is provided at the local level, and at what cost. The federal government wants to control health care.  It is only the voice of voters which keeps government in check. However, decentralization will only happen when Americans decide to take responsibility for their own health and well being.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vanity Fair

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:41:01 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Ronald Reagan's biggest fault was his actor's vanity.

Today, media mavens bemoan the great divide between the Republican Establishment represented by the likes of Colin Powell and David Brooks on the one hand, and the rank and file voters represented by Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin and her husband Todd on the other. Michelle Laxalt, the daughter of the late Nevada Senator and member of the Establishment, commented brashly to Chris Matthews recently that she is a Republican and dislikes Rush Limbaugh, which only goes to show how out of touch with reality she is. The older generation of intellectuals like Bill Buckley are gone. Even during his lifetime, there were indications of a split in the ranks between the educated elite and the working base.

The Republican leadership will either have to shed its phony pretenses or become a thing of the past. Conservatives don't win elections by kowtowing to feminists and minorities. We must win hearts and minds by offering a better alternative to liberal failures. We must convince women through rational discourse that they have a better place in the home raising children, and in workplace employment that does not create artificial incentives pitting them against more intelligent men. Dividing men against women only increases the power of the greedy, and leads to the further exploitation of women by the few.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ahmadinejad Antichrist Type

Posted by Mike on Monday, October 05, 2009 1:21:20 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Biblical scholars throughout the ages have speculated on the identity of the antichrist mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Is he a real person or a composite type found in many individuals? Some scholars maintain that he will be born into a Jewish family just as Christ was. The London Daily Telegraph has found conclusive evidence that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was born into a Jewish family in Aradan who converted to Islam about the time they moved to Tehran when Mahmoud was age four. Given Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel's right to exist, and the growth of Iran's nuclear program under his leadership, the question arises whether he is antichrist?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's the IQ Stupid

Posted by Mike on Sunday, October 04, 2009 2:03:12 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Alexis de Toqueville once observed the tendency in American democracy to give social and political controversies a legal cast. Nowhere is this more true than with regard to questions involving gender, race and intelligence.

Not surprisingly, the double helix DNA structure was first proposed in 1953 by gentile lads Watson and Crick in Britain where the Y chromosome R1b predominates.

Because the United States Supreme Court judges were hellbent on creating a level playing field, the level of intelligent discourse has declined dramatically. In short, whatever gifts women may have that men don't have, women are in general dumber than men, and the divergence is even greater at the high end intelligence level. This is because their brains are smaller than those of men.

When our cavemen ancestors first migrated out of Africa thousands of years ago, the first to settle in Europe were primitives who became known as Cro-Magnon. Much later, other groups settled from Asia and these were the source of the R1b type males. Because the older Cro-Magnon male DNA is very uncommon among males of European descent, it is clear that the male newcomers from Asia bore offspring and eventually replaced the indigenous male population. Even among women in Scandanavia, the older population has survived only in an isolated refuge in the East Baltic region as discovered recently.

In Asia, a certain allele causes a high intelligence level when it is inherited from only one parent, and causes birth defects and infant mortality when inherited by offspring from both parents simultaneously. This may account for the high intelligence level among the Asian populations, and among Ashenazi Jews of Eastern European descent to a greater extent due to inbreeding.

In order for Americans to become competitive with the emerging Asian nations and with Europe within the global economy, we must provide greater educational opportunities and job incentives to males of the R1a and R1b types regardless of race, who are currently underrepresented in colleges and universities and in the higher paying professions based upon gender and racial preferences and affirmative action.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Olympic Trip Shows America's Loss of Clout

Posted by Mike on Friday, October 02, 2009 2:20:09 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
"Something is rotten in Denmark, and Hamlet is taking out the trash."
No other head of state went to Copenhagen to lobby for the 2016 Olympics. Of course the Olympic Committee would appoint another candidate, Rio de Janeiro. Who would want to be bullied by an upstart? And why, to begin with, was the President of the United States following the dictates of the Chicago Mayor?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Holding the Judiciary Accountable

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:20:39 PM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
Since the infamous Supreme Court decisions of 1973, the major focus of pro-life activity has been to seek the overthrow of these decisions in the courts. Of far more importance, in my estimation, is seeking redress for the killings that have already taken place.

The American people should start by bringing to justice the Florida judge who sentenced Terri Schiavo to death. This would send a clear message that America will no longer tolerate politicians or government officials involved in the killing of innocent persons.

This will require that Americans band together to clear the deck of all corrupt judges at the state and federal levels, and bring an entirely new slate of Congressmen and Senators to Washington.

95% of American wealth is owned and controlled by 5% of the American people, who then tell Congress and the President what to do. We must act together to turn the pyramid on our dollar bill upside down, so that the majority of Americans again have the final say in deciding at the local level what we do as a nation.

This may require constitutional amendments to bring to justice the crooks in Washington including those on the bench. They cannot get off the hook just by saying they were following the law. This principle was decided at Nuremberg after WWII.

While it is important to bring to justice fugitives like Polanski who have harmed innocent people, of far more importance is it to begin the process of rebuilding America by focusing our attention on punishing those in government who are destroying America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Limited Government and the Principle of Subsidiarity

Posted by Mike on Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:57:43 AM
http://westernperspective.blogspot.com/
After the Revolutionary War in 1776, there were in effect thirteen sovereign states in America. Adopting the Articles of Confederation just meant that these states were willing to band together for common purposes such as defense and trade. The Constitution enacted in 1787 was designed to uphold the sovereignty of the several states within one nation.

The principle of subsidiarity prohibits government at a higher level from doing things that can be done locally or at a lower level. This is essentially the basis for the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights which limits the scope of the federal government to having only those powers enumerated in the constitution.

With the outbreak of the Civil War, President Lincoln had to take emergency measures to keep the Union together. During this time, the war powers of the executive branch of government grew.

The Baucus Bill on health care is a clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity. The best health care will not be provided by the federal government. In order to preserve good government in America, Americans must band together to vote out of office the president, and all senators and congressional representatives who vote in favor of the transfer of power over medical insurance to the federal government, or who vote in favor of the nationalization of health insurance or the so-called public option.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…2627Next »